So I just bought "The Total Jazz Guitarist" by David Overthrow and it is quite impressive. I may be a little bit over my head, but I'm motivated to continue with this book.

The complete encyclopedia of scales and modes in the early chapters has my head hurting. Can somebody give some suggestions on how to go about practicing scales and modes in a meaningful way? I can follow the fingerings and move up and down the fretboard and just memorize the patterns, but I don't feel like that will increase my understanding of the function of each scale or improve my knowledge of the fretboard. Help!

Jeff

I've argued with people about practicing scales and modes. I think it is a waste of time. When I play my bass, I play according to the chordal progressions of the song. I may use connecting notes between chordal tones that may be from some type of scale or mode, but who cares. I've been playing for over 30 years and the majority of the time a song's melody is from the major, harmonic minor, or melodic minor scales. Blues, you will use the blues scale, but not for every friggin' song! The modes are nothing but the major scale begun and ended on different notes. Whoopdeedoo!!! Wow, how hard is that to remember?
If you were my student, I'd have you learning the arpeggios and how to connect them to each other as they progress through a song. I'd have you read standards charts and move through a song chordally, not by running through a bunch of useless scales.
It is better that you get your ear used to hearing chord changes, and playing through them with impeccable time and rhythm, than to memorize a bunch of boring scales.
That's my opinion. I practice chord changes, hearing them, making them habit so I don't have to think about them, just play them. That way I am free to create without just mindlessly riffing through a noncreative scale.........
Memorizing scales are for melodic instruments........piano, guitar, etc..........but the bass????????????? Keep the rhythm solid, be like a clock on the timing, and lay down the solid chordal tones so that the melodic instruments can take care of the melody and any melodic improvising they want to do.
That's just my opinion.
Peace, Johnny

I've argued with people about practicing scales and modes. I think it is a waste of time. When I play my bass, I play according to the chordal progressions of the song. I may use connecting notes between chordal tones that may be from some type of scale or mode, but who cares. I've been playing for over 30 years and the majority of the time a song's melody is from the major, harmonic minor, or melodic minor scales. Blues, you will use the blues scale, but not for every friggin' song! The modes are nothing but the major scale begun and ended on different notes. Whoopdeedoo!!! Wow, how hard is that to remember?
If you were my student, I'd have you learning the arpeggios and how to connect them to each other as they progress through a song. I'd have you read standards charts and move through a song chordally, not by running through a bunch of useless scales.
It is better that you get your ear used to hearing chord changes, and playing through them with impeccable time and rhythm, than to memorize a bunch of boring scales.
That's my opinion. I practice chord changes, hearing them, making them habit so I don't have to think about them, just play them. That way I am free to create without just mindlessly riffing through a noncreative scale.........
Memorizing scales are for melodic instruments........piano, guitar, etc..........but the bass????????????? Keep the rhythm solid, be like a clock on the timing, and lay down the solid chordal tones so that the melodic instruments can take care of the melody and any melodic improvising they want to do.
That's just my opinion.
Peace, Johnny

Bass IS a melodic instrument. In fact any instrument is melodic, including drums. Now, you might argue that learning scales is a waste of time because it's more important learning how to connect chord changes. Well the diatonic context based on the major scale is how we derive the initial context of harmony.

It is by learning the major scale and how it modulates that we understand how we relate intervals, chords, modes and functional harmony so that we can apply this knowledge to any scale. Not just the major scale and its modes. Every scale has a modal system.

Learning and practicing scales is also paramount in refining technique as well. Not everyone does what you do the majority of the time. I also don't see why people want to discourage others from learning like this.

My advice to the OP is to try and understand how scales work and how modes, tertian chords, and harmony works. I would recommend getting some lessons maybe. It's probably not necessary to memorise every scale you see. What is important is learning how to put a scale into perspective and relate them melodically and harmonically.

You need to practice the modes over chords/changes to see what it sounds like *in context*.

Can you get "band in a box" or something like this? Are there examples of songs that use these modes melodically that you could learn?

You're probably better off transcribing songs and getting a sense of how this stuff works and then going back to the book and seeing how each mode introduces a different sound.

This thread definitely is going to open a can of worms.

everyone is right, learning more of everything is great. Learn new stuff every day. It's like a doctor knowing all the bones in the body, your a musician you should know all the notes. There are only 12, and you should be able to sing every note. Practice ear training it's very important over everything else I would say.;) An instrument is just the tool used to express the emotion you wish to create. A robot can play all the notes in the world in any progression needed. A musician is like a magician who can create emotion amongst the listener.

This thread definitely is going to open a can of worms.

Yes and it will be old, learn theory versus play by ear garbage. Honestly if you want to play by ear that's nice. Good for you and if it works for you I am happy for you. What I really don't understand is how anyone can think telling someone not to do something, probably because it means work that they don't want to admit they can't be bothered doing or don't understand, is good advice. Ask any professional musician, by professional I mean someone who can work in a variety of situations, have their act together and act professionally, what it takes to be good at what you do. Almost all of them, I guarantee, will tell you to learn theory, reading and proper technique.

The only reason I can think of to discourage anyone from undertaking to learn these things and better themselves is to promote your own laziness by undermining anyone who wants to go beyond what you are capable of.

This post isn't directed at you JehuJava, just so you don't misunderstand.

Yes and it will be old, learn theory versus play by ear garbage. Honestly if you want to play by ear that's nice. Good for you and if it works for you I am happy for you. What I really don't understand is how anyone can think telling someone not to do something, probably because it means work that they don't want to admit they can't be bothered doing or don't understand, is good advice. Ask any professional musician, by professional I mean someone who can work in a variety of situations, have their act together and act professionally, what it takes to be good at what you do. Almost all of them, I guarantee, will tell you to learn theory, reading and proper technique.

The only reason I can think of to discourage anyone from undertaking to learn these things and better themselves is to promote your own lazyness by undermining anyone who wants to go beyond what you are capable of.

This post isn't directed at you Jehujava, just so you don't misunderstand.

yah it's like learning to read and speak, you first learned by hearing your parents say something then you coppied it. Then after time you had to learn to read and write so you could communicate and comprehend the world, same with music - it's another language and the more proficient you are able to speak within it the better off you will be.

So I just bought "The Total Jazz Guitarist" by David Overthrow and it is quite impressive. I may be a little bit over my head, but I'm motivated to continue with this book.

The complete encyclopedia of scales and modes in the early chapters has my head hurting. Can somebody give some suggestions on how to go about practicing scales and modes in a meaningful way? I can follow the fingerings and move up and down the fretboard and just memorize the patterns, but I don't feel like that will increase my understanding of the function of each scale or improve my knowledge of the fretboard. Help!

Jeff

When I practice scales & modes, I intentionally don't play the familiar patterns, but rather look at the neck as a whole. The only thing I use patterns for is practicing right hand technique & speed. You don't want to get stuck in patterns - eventually you get to the point where you just "see" the neck and the scale or mode, not the fingering pattern, and that's where you want to be - you have all these doors open to you when you start to see it that way. It just takes practice. One thing you can do is intentionally skip around, playing in alternating octaves, playing alternate patterns like 1-3-2-4-3-5-4-6 etc, and then also backwards, and then mix it up even more (skipping two, then back, etc). Just mix it up, practice as many permutations as you can think of. You should know the patterns but don't "worry" about them. Hope this helps.

try upright, you can't see the notes...you gotta sing em!!

Personally IMO, I've always found by practicing scales, you indeed learn the fingerboard well. Exploring new patterns and fingering makes choosing the notes you want to play, much easier in the long run. Pacman's scale method in the above sticky is a great place to start if that is the direction you want to head.

When I practice scales & modes, I intentionally don't play the familiar patterns, but rather look at the neck as a whole. The only thing I use patterns for is practicing right hand technique & speed. You don't want to get stuck in patterns - eventually you get to the point where you just "see" the neck and the scale or mode, not the fingering pattern, and that's where you want to be - you have all these doors open to you when you start to see it that way. It just takes practice. One thing you can do is intentionally skip around, playing in alternating octaves, playing alternate patterns like 1-3-2-4-3-5-4-6 etc, and then also backwards, and then mix it up even more (skipping two, then back, etc). Just mix it up, practice as many permutations as you can think of. You should know the patterns but don't "worry" about them. Hope this helps.

It's good to make up a lot of different etudes like that, I think. You can do things like play every third of the scale too. Play different staggered patterns. I think it's also a good idea to "play through and try and see where different modes appear as you are playing your scales as well, to get an understanding of how modes manifest in scales. I also think it's good to apply this to all kinds of scales, not just the diatonic modes.

This post isn't directed at you JehuJava, just so you don't misunderstand.

Funny...I was like, "What the...?" until I read the post.

I don't see how you can avoid scales and just stick with arpeggios, especially when arpeggios are derived from scales.

Forget it...I'm just gonna buy that bass with all the LED's. You know the one that illuminates all the notes for a certain scale at the flip of a switch.

Wow, I guess I did open a can of worms! Thanks for chiming in everybody. I will re-read PacMan's sticky and see if I can get into it. I'm blessed with a great ear, so what I'm really trying to get inside the theory here, or I wouldn't have posted :) I played guitar for 17 years before I fell in love with the bass, and since I have the opportunity to do it "right" the second time, I'm excited about expanding my theory knowledge as well as my chops, and modes are something I do hear... but making sense of them on paper, then on the fretboard is IMHO another thing entirely. I was a ear-cowboy on guitar, and the more I learn about theory the more my eyes get opened. I just want all the tools in my toolbox dammit!

There are about as many approaches to learning and using scales and modes are there are players. The common trap is people sit and practice fingering patterns for a scale or mode and say they know scales and modes. No they know a fingering pattern. No matter what you learn scales, modes, arp's, etc you have to take the time to make music with that new tool. Everyone has their own way to do that too. For me when I learn a new scale I will just sit and jam with it emphasizing the chord tones for the chord it relates to. Then jam and check out the color tones. Then play the related chord and then experiment with the scale. Next I start working on common chord progressions so I can work on getting into and out of the scale or whatever. Basically try to turn the scale, mode, arp, or etc inside out and how best I can use it.

You need to practice the modes over chords/changes to see what it sounds like *in context*.

Can you get "band in a box" or something like this? Are there examples of songs that use these modes melodically that you could learn?

You're probably better off transcribing songs and getting a sense of how this stuff works and then going back to the book and seeing how each mode introduces a different sound.

This is good advice. You have to "play around" with the scales over different chords and HEAR what they sound like. Otherwise it will sound really pointless. Just lay down or get someone to lay down some chord progressions and GROOVE using the various scales and modes.

-Learn the Pacman Method (stickied at the top of this forum)

-1 key per day, practicing each scale from the same root

-Build up your scale syllabus each time you complete the cycle... Start with easier, common scales (Ionian, Dorian, Mixolydian, etc) through all 12 keys, and work your way through to more 'difficult' scales (Altered Scale, Whole-Half, Half-Whole, etc)

-Harmonize the scale in arpeggios

-Play scales in intervals and sequences

-Sing as you play (emphasize the root), internalize the sound of each scale

-Play and improvise learnt scales over sustained chords or progressions (Band in a Box is without a doubt the best tool for this)

-Don't get bogged down! If you're over scales, do something else (transcribe, learn a tune, etc)

I think there was a thread called "Pacman's Surefire method to practice scales" but I can't find it at the moment. Use that it really was a great thread - Makes note to re-read it at some point

it is here

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50170

I think there was a thread called "Pacman's Surefire way to learn scales" but I can't find it at the moment. Use that it really was a great thread - Makes note to re-read it at some point

Again. STICKIED at the top of this forum...

Now THAT was a good reply! Thanks Needmoney.

Jeff

You should try to think of scales and modes as they relate to the chords they originate from. For this reason, it's best to refer to all types of scales as "chord scales". What this means is that a dorian scale, for example, should be thought in terms of a IImin or IImin7 chord in a major context and a mixolydian scale as a Vmaj or V7.

Basically, when you think of a scale, you should think of the chord it represents. You should also be able to see and hear that chord (major, minor, dominant, etc.) within the scale while thinking of the other notes as passing diatonic tones from one chord tone to another.

FIrst, the critical bit of advice here is to SING WHAT YOU PLAY. And sing the note BEFORE you play it. The idea is to get the sound of that scale into your head so that your hands are following your head, not the other way 'round. I have found so little utility of modes that I pretty well ignore them now. Yeah, I know that A dorian is different from G major. But even playing a modal vamp, I'm still thinking of my note choices as G major, but focusing on the A, C, E, and G of the Amin7 chord. And if I'm playing changes, modal thinking only adds a layer of complexity that's not needed. If the key center of Amin7/D7 is G, and I'm targeting chord tones as my main notes, I'm automatically playing A dorian then G mixolydian without having to shift gears. And if you're trying to create music by thinking and playing modes root to root, I submit you've already missed the point of playing music.

But the key factor is to LISTEN to the sound of the scale, and own it before your hand plays the next note.

jte

You should try to think of scales and modes as they relate to the chords they originate from. For this reason, it's best to refer to all types of scales as "chord scales". What this means is that a dorian scale, for example, should be thought in terms of a IImin or IImin7 chord in a major context and a mixolydian scale as a Vmaj or V7.

Basically, when you think of a scale, you should think of the chord it represents. You should also be able to see and hear that chord (major, minor, dominant, etc.) within the scale while thinking of the other notes as passing diatonic tones from one chord tone to another.

I think you have to have context to think of scales as originating from chords. You can't really play a chord and say "well this scale belongs to it". You need to have a harmonic context to apply it to.

Yes, if you have a ii chord, or ii7 chord as the case may be, one option might be that playing a dorian scale over it will work, then again so would a lot of other scales. It's not necessarily correct to assume that everything adheres to a diatonic resolution. Even by designating something as a ii7 chord you still have a lot of options if you don't know the context of the tonal centre. It doesn't necessarily have to be major and based on the major scale.

I think when you are making decisions about applying chords to scales you have to realise that you need to look at the harmonic context and also realise that there is a certain amount of ambiguity involved. I would refer you to George Russell's "Lydian Dominant Theory" for a start.

I've argued with people about practicing scales and modes. I think it is a waste of time. When I play my bass, I play according to the chordal progressions of the song. I may use connecting notes between chordal tones that may be from some type of scale or mode, but who cares. I've been playing for over 30 years and the majority of the time a song's melody is from the major, harmonic minor, or melodic minor scales. Blues, you will use the blues scale, but not for every friggin' song! The modes are nothing but the major scale begun and ended on different notes. Whoopdeedoo!!! Wow, how hard is that to remember?
If you were my student, I'd have you learning the arpeggios and how to connect them to each other as they progress through a song. I'd have you read standards charts and move through a song chordally, not by running through a bunch of useless scales.
It is better that you get your ear used to hearing chord changes, and playing through them with impeccable time and rhythm, than to memorize a bunch of boring scales.
That's my opinion. I practice chord changes, hearing them, making them habit so I don't have to think about them, just play them. That way I am free to create without just mindlessly riffing through a noncreative scale.........
Memorizing scales are for melodic instruments........piano, guitar, etc..........but the bass????????????? Keep the rhythm solid, be like a clock on the timing, and lay down the solid chordal tones so that the melodic instruments can take care of the melody and any melodic improvising they want to do.
That's just my opinion.
Peace, Johnny

I would like to apologize for this entry into this forum. I should qualify that I play old school jazz standards, which is chordally based. I forget that most people are rockers, modal jazzers, new wavers, etc. on this forum and that scales and modes are very important in their music. So I apologize :crying:. I come from a Carol Kaye background and she does not teach modes and scales in her lessons. Please forgive my ignorance to how other forms of music use scales and modes.

Peace, Johnny

I would like to apologize for this entry into this forum. I should qualify that I play old school jazz standards, which is chordally based. I forget that most people are rockers, modal jazzers, new wavers, etc. on this forum and that scales and modes are very important in their music. So I apologize :crying:. I come from a Carol Kaye background and she does not teach modes and scales in her lessons. Please forgive my ignorance to how other forms of music use scales and modes.

Peace, Johnny

Tell me, where do those chords and arpeggios and extensions come from, historically? From where did harmony evolve? How did it evolve? Did it come out of thin air? Did Carol Kaye grace us with them in the Beginning?

Well in case you didn't know, Western music up until the 18th century was principally modal and melodic. That's about a 1000 years of music without a concept of functional harmony. Before that, harmony was created by using consonant intervals as defined purely by the scale, or mode. All through the Renaissance you had the traditional church modes applied to harmonic situations that arouse purely because of the composer's understanding of how pitches within the mode functioned (dominant, subdominant). If you ever listen to Josquin DuPres, the harmonic depth is staggering, but he never thought in terms of chords, or arpeggios, or any of that stuff that the Carol Kaye/bebop enthusiast claim to be the be-all-end-all of music. Just modes. Bach himself did not utilize the concept of a "I" chord or "ii" chord, or "V" chord, but rather had an ingrained sense of melodic "dominant", "tonic" and "subdominant" created by manipulation of intervals within the mode.

It was with Rameau that we first had the theory of functional harmony established. But even still, composers well into the 19th century were firmly ingrained with Johann Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum, the counterpoint text which dealt in music in the style of Palestrina, the Rennaissance composer who wrote modal music based purely on melody. By the 20th century, composers were playing with all sorts of bizzare new modalities and melodic systems. Early jazz was based largely on collective improvisations over scales and pentatonic patterns. It was bebop, a very complex system of harmonic densities, that eliminated long-scale melodic constructs in favor of harmonic progressions of the moment, and from then on, all of music history was forgotten as far as bebop players were concerned. Chords were everything, melody was nothing. Even if it was something other than a tertian construction, it wasn't what you were supposed to learn. It's an exceedingly narrowminded viewpoint on an exceedingly specialized stylistic form of playing to force an "arpeggios-only" viewpoint on all of music pedagogy.

I find the contempt of the "old-guard" of jazz musicians towards scales frighteningly ignorant, and its these sorts of views that make figuring out the big picture that much harder.

Tell me, where do those chords and arpeggios and extensions come from, historically? From where did harmony evolve? How did it evolve? Did it come out of thin air? Did Carol Kaye grace us with them in the Beginning?

Well in case you didn't know, Western music up until the 18th century was principally modal and melodic. That's about a 1000 years of music without a concept of functional harmony. Before that, harmony was created by using consonant intervals as defined purely by the scale, or mode. All through the Renaissance you had the traditional church modes applied to harmonic situations that arouse purely because of the composer's understanding of how pitches within the mode functioned (dominant, subdominant). If you ever listen to Josquin DuPres, the harmonic depth is staggering, but he never thought in terms of chords, or arpeggios, or any of that stuff that the Carol Kaye/bebop enthusiast claim to be the be-all-end-all of music. Just modes. Bach himself did not utilize the concept of a "I" chord or "ii" chord, or "V" chord, but rather had an ingrained sense of melodic "dominant", "tonic" and "subdominant" created by manipulation of intervals within the mode.

It was with Rameau that we first had the theory of functional harmony established. But even still, composers well into the 19th century were firmly ingrained with Johann Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum, the counterpoint text which dealt in music in the style of Palestrina, the Rennaissance composer who wrote modal music based purely on melody. By the 20th century, composers were playing with all sorts of bizzare new modalities and melodic systems. Early jazz was based largely on collective improvisations over scales and pentatonic patterns. It was bebop, a very complex system of harmonic densities, that eliminated long-scale melodic constructs in favor of harmonic progressions of the moment, and from then on, all of music history was forgotten as far as bebop players were concerned. Chords were everything, melody was nothing. Even if it was something other than a tertian construction, it wasn't what you were supposed to learn. It's an exceedingly narrowminded viewpoint on an exceedingly specialized stylistic form of playing to force an "arpeggios-only" viewpoint on all of music pedagogy.

I find the contempt of the "old-guard" of jazz musicians towards scales frighteningly ignorant, and its these sorts of views that make figuring out the big picture that much harder.

Wow you really showed him. :rolleyes:

I think you have to have context to think of scales as originating from chords. You can't really play a chord and say "well this scale belongs to it". You need to have a harmonic context to apply it to.

In tonal harmony, which applies to 99% of western music played today, scales are derived from harmony. Every chord has its "proper scale" or the scale that one would use to play "inside" the harmony. What it means is that if you have a Min13 (min7 with natural 9, 11, and 13) this chord is exemplified by one chord scale: Dorian. In other words the Dorian scale is the chord scale of a min13 chord. In tonal harmony, the function of this chord is that of a IImin.

Of course one can play more than one scale on any given chord, in order to play "outside", but here we are getting in the realm of chord substitution which is, I believe, a step beyond what the OP had asked. Nevertheless, when one substitutes a scale, one is substituting a chord, thus one is still using chord scales.

For example. If one plays a Mixolydian b9 b13 on a V7 chord resolving to a Major chord, one is implying (substituting) a V7b9b13 by using the chord scale of that particular chord.

Wow you really showed him. :rolleyes:

Yes, he really did show me.............and I greatly appreciate it!!! Ever since I read HaVIC5's post I have been browsing the net for all the information I can get about modes and modal jazz! I've been playing for 30 years and I feel like someone just came along and pulled my head out of the sand!!! This is a breath of fresh air to this old plodding bass player! I mean I've known about modal jazz for a very long time, but I always let pride get in the way and say, "Hey, I'm old school and that's how it's supposed to be. To hell with everyone else. They're wrong, I'm right!!" WELL! After reading HaVIC5s post, I realized, that I'm a closed minded old fart!!! He has really opened my eyes and I'm having a blast learning about modes, scales and applying them in a real creative sense. Yes, he did show me!!!! And I'm loving it........it's like a new life for this old bassist!!! Well, back the studies.......I'm so excited about this!!!!!!!!!!!!!:hyper::hyper::hyper::hyper:
Johnny

Whoah, I can totally understand what Johnny, the poster above, is talking about in that my mind is kind of blown by information I am starting to learn about scales and modes. I too was brought up on the Carol Kaye concept of how to play jazz. I found this thread because I was looking for information on modal jazz. Everyone else in this class I was in today seemed so comfortable with how to play modally. I felt like I was just getting by and faking it. I wanted to figure out what I am missing about this.

Mark Levine's book, The Total Jazz Pianist, says it succinctly:
"Until the mid 1950's, most jazz musicians thought vertically instead of horizontally--chords instead of scales." So, with my training, I mainly learned to think vertically. That's OK for 50's jazz, but what about the rest?

Its not that I cannot play all these post 50's tunes, its just that I really have no real understanding of what I am playing and how to play it well. I am just getting by, probably because I have been thinking vertically. I am missing a big chunk of jazz history and theory knowledge, and I am so excited about delving in and learning all about this and I have already been browsing the net looking for info on modal jazz and pulling out some jazz theory books that have been gathering dust.

Hey Johnny, how's it going with the scales and modes?

In tonal harmony, which applies to 99% of western music played today, scales are derived from harmony. Every chord has its "proper scale" or the scale that one would use to play "inside" the harmony. What it means is that if you have a Min13 (min7 with natural 9, 11, and 13) this chord is exemplified by one chord scale: Dorian. In other words the Dorian scale is the chord scale of a min13 chord. In tonal harmony, the function of this chord is that of a IImin.

Of course one can play more than one scale on any given chord, in order to play "outside", but here we are getting in the realm of chord substitution which is, I believe, a step beyond what the OP had asked. Nevertheless, when one substitutes a scale, one is substituting a chord, thus one is still using chord scales.

For example. If one plays a Mixolydian b9 b13 on a V7 chord resolving to a Major chord, one is implying (substituting) a V7b9b13 by using the chord scale of that particular chord.
No, you have it back to front. What you are saying is based on a paradigm. In all of the examples you give you are giving a context to make those scales fit the harmonic context. That is not true for general tonality.

You don't take a Maj7 chord and say "This is the chord for Ionian" when it could fit any number of scales besides just lydian and ionian. On the other hand you do look at the major scale and derive the teritan chords based on the scale, for example.